This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2017, when it received 12,048,341 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report8 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I think it's a bad source of information for two reasons: 1) it's grammatically incorrect (probably a typo by the article writer) and 2) Roven was putting spin on a bad situation. Since the movie's release, numerous people involved with the production have gone on record stating how much Whedon's footage deviated from Snyder's script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
As the one who added it back, I think it should be kept. It is grammatically correct, but most importantly I think it's sort of a testimony to how WB brazenly lied about the theatrical cut IMO. JOEBRO6422:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
It's not grammatically correct: "There's only so much you can do with other 15, 20 percent of the movie." There should be a "the" between "with" and "15, 20 percent". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Allegations that Joss Whedon behaved unprofessionally on set were removed from the article[1] with an edit summary awaiting better sources. Starting a discussion, so far we have Twitter messages from actor Ray Fisher which have been widely reported.[2] Variety magazine has an article.[3] No comment from Whedon. No comment from Warners. Producer Jon Berg categorically denied the accusation that he enabled any unprofessional behavior. Probably still best to wait-and-see if anything else happens before including it in the article. -- 109.78.215.215 (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I would wait to see how it unfolds. The idea that directors are assholes on sets isn't new. If the story becomes something, then we can make note of it. Right now, it doesn't appear to be anything worthy of note. BIGNOLE (Contact me)13:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Fisher says he is prevented from saying more by a NDA.[4] It seems increasingly unlikely that we will get any more information specifically relevant to this film, but maybe more disclosures about Whedon.
Kevin Smith did say he was told that Whedon had been bad mouthing Snyder,[5] which sounds unprofessional and insecure but again not notable enough. I think we're done, but people can always restart discussion if better sources become available. -- 109.78.220.223 (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
This statement--"All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source."--does not mean you can add something that isn't used in the film. It means if there is a more common usage in the film, even though that isn't the credit then you can list that name, not commonly known outside of the film. The "Kal-El/Clark Kent" example is the best one actually, because he isn't credited as "Superman", and he isn't even commonly called Superman in the film. It's used once (twice, since Swanwick repeats), near the start of the third act. Another good example is the Wonder Woman film. She's never called Wonder Woman, she isn't credited as Wonder Woman, and you only hear "Prince" used once as well. Other than that, she is only called Diana and solely credited as "Diana". Just because we "commonly" know Clark Kent as "Superman" in the real world, or Diana Prince as Wonder Woman, doesn't mean we can rename a character in a film. That's why the credits are first and foremost based on the actual listing in the film, and in special circumstances something also used but not credited.
That said, it doesn't mean you wouldn't explain who they were in prose format after the credit though. Was there a particular name in question here? It seems mostly to be a revert based on putting the "real" name first and the superhero name second, which is the proper way to list aliases. BIGNOLE (Contact me)17:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Josstice League. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 19#Josstice League until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ★Trekker (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)